Talk:Metaphilosophy

Removal of my 'unsupported opinion'

In this edit Snowded removed the following remark:

"Metaphilosophy is intent upon providing an overview and evaluation of methods philosophy-wide, and is not intent upon taking over the various schools of thought in various sub-disciplines."

His reason is given as: rv unreferenced personal opinion.

It's fair to say the removed statement is unreferenced, but to suggest that it is simply a "personal opinion" needing further support is ludicrous. There is no philosopher that would disagree with this remark, as is fully evident from the few sentences (fully sourced) that precede it in the lead. Its purpose here is very simply to underline the fact that meta-philosophy is not to be confused with philosophy proper and its classical sub-fields, a confusion that can result from skimming over the introduction, as shown by some confusion expressed in the RfC underway on Talk:Philosophy here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you say what it would mean for metaphilosophy to take over certain schools of thought in sub-disciplines? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: That's an interesting question. I suppose if it were to happen that careful examination of the methods of philosophy demonstrated some problems of methodology in some sub-field, that would provoke a revolution in that area. It wouldn't be a take-over, exactly. More like reinforcing old buildings so they were more earthquake resistant. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If its self-evident why say it? No one is claiming the negative intent and there is no literature to support it. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple questions

The following paragraph seems to capture the idea of 'metaphilosophy' rather simply for the average (non-philosophical) reader:

"What is philosophy? How should we do it? Why should we bother to? These are the kinds of questions addressed by metaphilosophy - the philosophical study of the nature of philosophy itself."

I suggest it be added somewhere in the introduction as an easier and less dry approach to the subject that makes clear what 'mataphilosophy' is about. It is similar to the introduction to the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, which begins:

What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? .

This choice indicates that Nicholas Joll also thinks this is a good approach for an introduction. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that could make a very good quote to include after the lede. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Or, worst of all: 'What is philosophy?' Most students and practitioners of philosophy, we suspect, have felt something of the unease Ayer expresses in this quote... Indeed, this conception of philosophers and philosophy has long been lampooned... That people have misconceptions about what philosophy is and what philosophers do is not peculiar to Philosophy. Some people don’t know ... about the astronomer’s profession. What may be peculiar to philosophy, however, is its practitioners’ feeling that the request for clarification is, as Ayer puts it, the ‘worst of all’ — worse than the common misunderstandings... The astronomer might well become irritated by requests for horoscopes, but, again, he will hardly experience the embarrassment so well known to the philosopher... It is no easy matter to explain what we do... it isn't obviously the case that there is a particular region of objects... that philosophers make it their special business to study... what philosophers actually do seems hard to communicate expect by getting people to do some philosophising themselves... Partly, however, our embarrassment at the question of what we do may also reflect the fact that, to put this a bit provocatively, we do not know."

— Overgaard, Gilbert and Burwood, An Introduction to Metaphilosophy

It was reverted for belaboring "the investigation of the nature of philosophy". Readers asking "What is philosophy?" should see the philosophy article... Those who are asking "what it is to ask what philosophy is" are the target audience, i.e. "the average (non-philosophical) reader".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf: There are three views of what metaphilosophy is, all documented in the WP article and in Contemporary Metaphilosophy. There is the school to which apparently you subscribe that metaphilosophy is the metatheory of philosophy. That position, while not denied, is labeled "narrow and tendentious". The second position held by Heidegger and by Williamson among others, is that there is no metaphilosophy, only the 'philosophy of philosophy', part of philosophy. The term 'philosophy of philosophy' is mentioned in the lead to metaphilosophy. The third position, taken to be that of Lazerowitz who coined the term (according to him), is that metaphilosophy encompasses both these views and advantages itself by straying back and forth over this boundary as the discussion requires. With this latter more general view of the subject, the musings over ‘What is philosophy? How should we do it? Why should we bother to?’ are within the scope of metaphilosophy, as explained in detail in the article and in Contemporary Metaphilosophy and, of course, in the Cambridge University Press's concept of An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To push this point a bit further, given the general approach of the article, and the misconceptions of its content that apparently are possible given the present lead, it would be salutary to include these questions in the lead to make the meaning more obvious to the casual reader. Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added two sources to the lead that might make the matter clearer. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Further reading

• Hampl M., (2000) Reality, Society and Geographical/Environmental Organization: Searching for an Integrated Order, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Science, ISBN 80-902686-2-5

62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

/*/*description consensus needed*/*/

-Just found this Metaphilosophy article in Wikipedia; (editors) could change the first two "philosophy" descriptions in this Metaphilosophy article and the Philosophy article, and make them the same-please, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As evidenced by these "contrasting" opinions?

The opinions don't seem to contrast so much to me. The philosophers named in that paragraph seem to be in agreement that, whether by principle or practicality, meta-philosophy is philosophy. 1101 (talk) 1101 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)